TSE Information Technology Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by TSE Information Technology Pty Ltd for approval of a nomination under the Direct Entry stream of the Employer Nomination scheme. The applicant sought to nominate an individual for the position of Corporate General Manager. The core of the dispute revolved around whether there was a genuine need for the employer to employ a paid employee in this specific role, as required by regulation 5.19(4)(a)(ii) of the Migration Regulations 1994. The decision was made by Senior Member John Cipolla of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had demonstrated a genuine need to employ a paid Corporate General Manager. This involved assessing whether the duties associated with that position were already being adequately fulfilled by existing personnel within the business. The Tribunal also considered whether to grant an adjournment to allow the applicant to provide further evidence, having regard to relevant case law concerning the tribunal's obligations in managing its decision-making processes.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the nomination, finding that the applicant had not established a genuine need for a Corporate General Manager. The delegate had noted that the business had been operating since 2014 and that many of the duties of a Corporate General Manager, such as project management, sales and marketing, human resources, financial management, and daily administration, would likely have been undertaken by existing staff, including a Sales and Marketing Manager, Human Resources Manager, IT Support Engineer, Accountant, and Office Administrator. No explanation was provided as to why these existing roles could not continue to perform these tasks. The Tribunal also noted that despite being invited to provide further information by 6 March 2018, no response was received from the applicant. In light of the lack of evidence and the applicant's failure to respond to the request for information, the Tribunal concluded that it was not required to indefinitely defer its decision-making process, referencing established legal principles regarding adjournments.